Money. Identity. Technology.
Follow the money. Find the decision.
Named adopter retaining its own rules and action integration
Bluesky is a social platform described in a ROOST-published case study as using Osprey in production. Its engineers integrated the rules engine with the platform's event stream and response systems, while analysts developed rules and custom functions for operational safety work.
The July 2025 announcement described planned adoption. The 4 February 2026 case study later described atproto events flowing through Osprey, outputs sent through Kafka, and a Bluesky-owned effects receiver invoking Ozone. Its example labels suspected t-shirt spammers. The account reports over 45 million events and 100,000 enforcement actions daily; neither measure is a count of unique accounts. These are participant-reported figures, not independently observed telemetry, and the account does not establish use of the Christchurch Call Foundation's policy template.
Bluesky → Osprey
2026-02-04 – 2026-02-04
February case study attributes over 45m events and 100,000 enforcement actions daily to Bluesky; neither is a unique-account count. Analysts own rules and custom functions. ROOST-published participant account, not independently tested telemetry or proof of CCF-template use.
Bluesky → Bluesky-owned Osprey effects receiver
2026-02-04 – 2026-02-04
Published account locates effects at the platform. No grant authority, upstream template author or ROOST repository permission is shown issuing a specific content order through this path.
Bluesky → Osprey
2025-07-21 – 2025-07-21
Launch account described planned/forthcoming availability and use. Later production account does not turn this announcement into contemporaneous deployment proof.
The described path is atproto event stream → Osprey with Bluesky-specific functions → Kafka output sink → effects receiver on Bluesky servers → action in Ozone . The account says analysts migrated and developed rules; its named example labels suspected t-shirt spammers. This identifies the platform's rule-writing and action integration, not ROOST approval of each decision. Setup still involved engineering, despite reduced dependence on engineers for subsequent rule changes.
Read the research & sources ↗The supportable paths are Discord's reported production use / contribution / reintegration , and a ROOST-published account of Bluesky production use , with platform-configured rules and a local action integration . Where the case already holds the organizations and Osprey, reuse them. Do not create an enforcement-authority edge from a logo, model-provider affiliation or working-group attendance.
Read the research & sources ↗Bluesky → was named as planning adoption in July 2025 → Osprey
2025-07-21 – 2025-07-21
Reported by the cited source
Launch account described planned/forthcoming availability and use. Later production account does not turn this announcement into contemporaneous deployment proof.
Bluesky → was later reported using Osprey with locally authored rules → Osprey
2026-02-04 – 2026-02-04
Reported by the cited source
February case study attributes over 45m events and 100,000 enforcement actions daily to Bluesky; neither is a unique-account count. Analysts own rules and custom functions. ROOST-published participant account, not independently tested telemetry or proof of CCF-template use.
Bluesky → owns the reported effects receiver and local enforcement choices → Bluesky-owned Osprey effects receiver
2026-02-04 – 2026-02-04
Reported by the cited source
Published account locates effects at the platform. No grant authority, upstream template author or ROOST repository permission is shown issuing a specific content order through this path.